MARSHALL v. HOLM

Filing 35

ORDER directing plaintiff to show cause by 6/15/09 why this case should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/5/09. (elc),(ps) Modified on 6/5/2009: Copy of order mailed to Kansas St. address as well. (eds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------M A R K D. MARSHALL, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -3 9 8 - b b c v. W IL L IA M HOLM, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------Plaintiff Mark D. Marshall filed this lawsuit while he was in prison, alleging that defendan t William Holm used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Am endm ent. On April 20, 2009, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,

co n ten din g that the amount of force he used was restrained and appropriate to prevent p lain tiff from engaging in further acts of self harm. Plaintiff was given until May 22, 2009 to file a response. He did not respond. This is not the first time plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing his law suit. On December 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for interrogatories that was blank. Dkt. #17. Defendant's counsel responded to plaintiff that it would not respond unless instructed to do so. Dkt. #18. Plaintiff did not file an additional request for interrogatories.

1

Also, on March 16, 2009, plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. Defendant's co un sel sent a letter to plaintiff at his last-known address about his absence at the deposition an d asking him to contact defendant's counsel to reschedule. Dkt. #19. Plaintiff did not respo nd to the letter. Because plaintiff has failed to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment or communicate with the court in any other way since December 29, 2008, it appears that plaintiff is no longer interested in prosecuting this case. In these circumstances, rather than turn straight to the merits of defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment, it is pro per to decide first whether plaintiff wishes to even proceed in this case. Therefore, I will grant plaintiff a short time in which to show cause why this case should not be dismissed w ith prejudice for his failure to prosecute. If plaintiff fails to respond within the time allow ed, this case will be closed.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause no later than June 15, 2009, why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. If plaintiff does not respo nd by June 15, 2009, the clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of

2

defendan ts dismissing this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. E n tered this 5t h day of June, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3